Touch Weight

[Richard Brekne]

I have to aggree with Davids words below. Jims advice is good enough as
far as it goes, but that has been really the basic advice line for
decades up to the point where David Stanwoods method came around. If its
a simple matter of weigh off for a given balance weight, and an even
hammerweight curve one is after, I cant see a better (or even close to
as good) or more simple method to achieve that. 

The discussion surrounding action inertia would seem to provide at least
some powder for shooting Davids system down abit, in as much as
precision Front Weights (key leading) would seem quite superflous in
terms of action dynamics. However that discussion is a long ways from
over, and something tells me that key inertia, and the role static
balancing plays in the overall touch of the action is far more important
then the present math modeling allows for. 

But as long as one remains primarilly concerned with static balancing
then Stanwoods system does allow for the easiest way I know of for
achieving the goals that Jim wrote down in his post. In addition,
Stanwoods system allows for a significant degree of re-designing an
action within safe operating principles. Personally, I can see no reason
why this should not be of interest to action rebuilders. It is both
enlightening, interesting, and rewarding to execute the kinds of design
changes Stanwoods systems allows for. And if you want to, you can leave
the basic design alone, and do what has always been done far more
accuratly in approximatly the same time it takes to re-hammer and
re-weighoff the old style.

Cheers
RicB



David Love wrote:
> 
> I think this is good advice except that starting with a well designed
> action is often the problem.  One needs some method of assessing whether or
> not the action is, in fact, well designed, or at least whether the weight
> of the hammer is a good match for the overall leverage in the action.  This
> is not that difficult to do.  Taking a reading of some sample notes in up
> weight, downweight, front weight, hammer weight (minimally) can give you a
> good sense of whether you might have problems and need to make some
> adjustments to the hammer weight or, most easily, the knuckle position.  A
> rudimentary understanding of Stanwood methodology is not difficult to
> grasp.  He has published several articles in the journal in years past
> which, if read carefully, will give you a working knowledge of his system.
> 
> Additionally, while using recommended parts for the system will often yield
> good results, sometimes they will not.  Sample kits are available from
> manufacturers like Renner and Abel that will give you a quick and easy way
> to see whether the parts you are going to put on there will work and not
> cause weight problems in either direction.   New hammers from Steinway are
> much heavier than the older hammers from the 20's.  If you combine those
> hammers with the original dimension parts, you will probably have a weight
> problem.  When putting actions together, measure twice cut once.  Take the
> time to put on samples and regulate and weigh off to determine if you are
> in the ballpark.  Become familiar with basic Stanwood ideas so that you can
> determine whether your new parts will cause a jump in the required front
> weight (leads) to get your desired balance weight.
>